Newsbusters:
Tuesday, May 20 was primary day in six states across the county and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews was dubbed the point man for the network’s election night coverage. Unfortunately, the Hardball host couldn’t resist taking an inappropriate swipe at the five Republicans seeking the nomination for Senate in Georgia.
At the very end of a segment that aired at 7:27 p.m. Eastern, Matthews commented that the GOP primary will likely head to a runoff and “the reason they have these runoffs is to make sure no black guy ever won a nomination down there.”
The Hardball host observed:
And in Georgia, five Republicans are battling for the Senate nomination. If no one gets over 50 percent, which they wont, the top two vote-getters will head on to July to a runoff for the right to take on Democrat Michelle Nunn. By the way, the reason they have these runoffs is to make sure no black guy ever won a nomination down there.
Matthews’ disgusting comments came during a discussion with Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee and Stephanie Schriock, president of the pro-choice Emily’s List. The conversation on the Georgia primary centered almost entirely on the Republican Party including a discussion about whether or not the Republican candidates including Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA) were “crazy.”
Not only were Matthews’ comments highly offensive, they were historically inaccurate as well.
Bill and Hillary tried to help Chelsea’s Mother-In-Law win in the Dem primary in PA.
She LOST!
Even with all the fundraising, ringing endorsements and the name recognition, she lost!
What does that tell you?
@Nanny G: Are you trying to engage in a credible argument of political punditry or simply making a sophomoric jab? I suspect the latter.
There were variables in former Representative Margolies’s campaign strategies, voting history, previous political performance, and even campaign funding that you prefer to ignore. So those “ringing endorsements” (tad of plagiarism there ain’t it?) can’t be construed as a Clinton magic wan nor does it undermine the political influence of the Clintons.
It looks like the “establishment” kicked ass yesterday by taking huge wins in Kentucky, Oregon, Georgia, Idaho, and the list goes on. So what does this stinging or “crushing” defeat of the Tea Partiers tell us? Well, consider McConnell. Everyone hates Mitch. Dems hate him. So called conservatives hate him. The Tea Party hates him. But, like these other establishment winners, he’ll be on that November/midterm/low voter turnout ticket. And like it or not, the only option the voter has is to vote either Democrat or the dreaded GOP establishment. What you have here is a lot of people that would never ever vote for the likes of a democrat yet cannot stand the thought of voting for someone like Mitch McConnell. So many will simply stay home.
Now let me explains why that matters. In KY for example, we have a Dem Governor, a Senate that’s overwhelmingly Republican, and a House slightly controlled by Democrats with had an outside chance of being flipped. Had Bevin beat McConnell, there would have been a lot more energy, excitement, and voter turnout. With all these disgruntled voters staying home, Democrats have a huge advantage of retaining the House and possibly gaining seats in both chambers.
Now let me explain why this is so important even though KY has a Democratic Governor. In KY, the Gov’s veto is overrode by a simple legislative majority vote, meaning he really has no veto power at all. And so, for the first time, the KY GOP could have pushed through their agenda such as right to work, voter disenfranchisement, abortion restrictions, mandatory gun purchases, or whatever they wanted. They would have been in full control.
That Tea Party Frankenstein just struck again.
@Ronald J. Ward:
You presume to know what will happen in November. But the truth of the matter is that Democrats, of the Obama ilk, win elections by getting out the millenials, the very people that are now hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt due to university costs but cannot find jobs, and they are not energized to vote this year. Add to that the fact that the minority party generally does better in off-year elections.
Also, the primary in one state does not affect the turn out in the other 49.
Which has absolutely zip to do with the McConnell/Bevin race. Federal senators have zero impact on state legislatures since they do not have a vote in those legislatures.
What you know about political science could be put in the eye of a gnat.
As per the usual, leftist cheerleaders like Matthews have to use race-baiting to try and obscure the fact that Democrats all over the nation are in electoral danger due to the failure of the Obama administration and the liberal ideology in general.
If it weren’t for stupidity, Matthews would have no discernable traits.
@retire05: After going against my better judgment and reading your response I’m reminded why I seldom read your responses. You seem more interested in being a contrarian than you are to discuss an issue. If I say the kettle’s black, you will claim otherwise. If I say it’s of another color, you will dispute that as well. Your determination to turn every conversation into a heads-you-win/tails-I-lose game serves no purpose.
No, I don’t presume any ability to state November’s outcome. I can however look at shifts in the political winds and deduce an hypothesis which I try to present with logical arguments.
I’m aware that voter turnout among Obama supporters will be low. I’m aware that midterms are historically bad for the sitting POTUS’s party. Where or how did I imply otherwise? What I pointed out was that the TP’s loss and the “establishment” gain does is to help offset that. By what degree on a national level I don’t know.
I also understand that U.S. legislators don’t vote on state legislation. I never claimed they did. This is another distracting non sequitur that you’re so well known for, something to pull from the argument away from voter turnout.
Many so-called conservative voters will stay home because they would never ever vote for a Democrat yet they can’t stand the thought of voting for that “establishment/RINO”. So for every disgruntled Republican that stays home, that’s an advantage for the Democrat, just as its an advantage for the GOP for a Dem to stay home. The math doesn’t discriminate. If this disgruntled GOP voter isn’t there to vote for a U.S. Senator, guess what! He/she isn’t there to vote for a state level seat either!
And I also realize that KY doesn’t speak for the other 49 states and your insinuation that I’m arguing that further validates my claim that your only objective is to troll the conversation. I specifically wrote “In KY for example” . Regardless, voter turnout is a vital component in every state and every election, some more than others. It just happens to be a bigger player with bigger stakes in KY and KY presents a more explicit example of how the Tea Party is benefiting the Democratic Party.
Ronald, you make a good point regarding how establishment Republicans usually end up on ballots.
Chris Matthews could have made your point without the racism and avoided the headlines, but headlines are all he’s got.
CA made a law that the TOP TWO vote-getters get on the ballot (even though that means No Republicans but Two Democrats running in almost every race!)
I call your attention to India’s most recent vote.
There were these old, established parties filled with ”elites” who are used to running and winning PLUS there was a new populace party (like our TEA Party).
The ”elities” had ruled India for over 40 years in a row.
But they were defeated soundly by this brand new party.
Now look at the news from UK tomorrow.
May 22 is a national election day in UK.
Traditionally ”elite” parties in UK include the Conservatives, Labor and the Green party.
They have ruled UK for decades.
But all three are polling far behind UKIP, the new popular party.
There is a lot in common among these three newer parties: India’s, the UKIP and the TEA party.
I doubt the TEA Party can take too many elections here just yet, but India and UK are canaries in the coalmines.
Watch what they do to make their countries more competitive, less open-bordered, more fiscally responsible.
Both Dems and Reps are trying to starve the TEA Party out of races.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Why change your policy now? Except you say the same thing every time you respond to me.
If you say the kettle is black but I can’t see the kettle, how do I know you’re being truthful? The kettle could be copper, brass, tin, steel or white enamel. The burden of proof lies with you.
@Ronald J. Ward:
What you are trying to do is predict voter turn out in six months based on a primary. Unless your name is really Larry Sabato, you can’t make that prediction with any credibility. If conservative voters are determined to flip the U.S. Senate, they will turn out. It is the Democrat voter that can’t be counted on in November.
I think slush funding should not be used to falsely create a wrong impression that O’Care monthly policies will be reasonable UP UNTIL the ELECTION in November.
But that is what Obama has done!
Los Angeles Times:
BILLION of DOLLARS, not from the Koch brothers or George Soros.
BILLIONS of DOLLARS from TAXPAYERS!!!!
And all for what?
To help Obama’s buddies in the Dem party in November.
This marks yet another unilateral change in O’Care, too.
And Dems used to scream foul about the so-called ”doctor-fix.”
But they institutionalized that fix last year.
Now this.
Far worse than any rich man using his own money.
Far worse.
@Nanny G: I find your Tea Party comparison to be rather odd. For starters, the Tea Party is not a political party at all but rather a movement.
Another problem is that the Tea Party has lost a lot of supporters and clout. This has been proven in the last election cycles.
I’m not much of a TP fan. The TP was orchestrated by prominent right wing extremist, bankrolled by corporate billionaires, and promoted by constant friendly and free air time from a GOP/corporate kowtowing Fox News in order to advance their Plutocratic and Social Darwinism agenda at an opportune time of exploiting the hatred of a newly elected black POTUS.
But all of that has nothing to do with electability.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Unlike the Democrats who only have the common man to contribute to their causes, like Peter Lewis and George Soros? Or this:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/democracy_alliance_fills_the_coffers_of_liberal_activist_groups.html
When in doubt, play that race card, RJW. Except it is so dog eared now that everyone knows it for what it is.
Conservatives dislike Obama because he’s Red, not black.
@Ronald J. Ward: “The TP was orchestrated by prominent right wing extremist, bankrolled by corporate billionaires, and promoted by constant friendly and free air time from a GOP/corporate kowtowing Fox News in order to advance their Plutocratic and Social Darwinism agenda at an opportune time of exploiting the hatred of a newly elected black POTUS.” Wow. Can you recite that patented left wing mantra in one breath?
Fox also covered the Occupy Wall Street movement; were they paid off by them as well? It’s called “N E W S”, Ronald, and some of the better organizations cover it regardless of the politics of it.
Why do we criticize Reid? Racism doesn’t seem to work in that scenario. I suppose you can claim the “war on women” in play concerning Pelosi, but her failure (like Obama’s) would appear to make the reasons for criticism obvious. I suppose the left’s attacks on Condi Rice, Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, Tim Scott or Alan West (to name a few) is all driven by racism? OF COURSE IT IS!!!
@Bill: That’s not really a left wing mantra but rather a Ronald J. Ward original (although it’s about 80% facts and I can’t accept credit for creating facts).
Fox did more to defeat OWS where as they did more to promote the TP.
I have no control over what you suppose I claim and what you suppose I don’t.
The only attacks I recall on Condi Rice was for her role in conning us into attacking Iraq. And then there was something about shoe shopping that was meaningless politics. Maybe you can explain how any of that is racially motivated. There’s enough on Clarence Thomas to never get to race. Allen and West are both just batshit crazy, regardless of their color. Based on your response, you don’t seem to be much better.
@Ronald J. Ward:
You want to claim that it is not their race that causes you to dislike Thomas, Allen or West, yet you do not accept that from any conservative who you know does not like Obama? Really? REALLY?
No, you don’t like those men because they are not willing to live on Uncle Sam’s Plantation or be slaves to the Democratic Party. Instead, they are Frederick Douglas/Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Republicans.
I would remind you, RJW, that it was a liberal cartoonist, not a conservative one, that portray Dr. Rice as Missy, the house slave from Gone With The Wind. And I would remind you that not ONE Democrat spoke out against that.
Based on your insulting ways, you are no more than a lemming, willing to follow the Socialists right off the cliff.
Ron,
I was actually pointing out that populace movements like in India and UKIP in UK have taken off and won over ALL parties run by the various elites.
The TEA Party did NOT lose a lot of support.
It wrongly aligned itself with Republicans.
The Republicans used them to their advantage.
Sometimes a TEA party Republican wins, other times the GOP with holds funding from the TEA Party candidate on their own ballot.
If the TEA Party gets itself freed from all the Obama/IRS funding strangulation issues then it can take off.
But it has to break free of the GOP.
Again, look to the UK’s election on May 22.
@Ronald J. Ward:Oh, I was so hoping you would fall for this!! Thank you, thank you, thank you!! “Fox did more to defeat OWS where as they did more to promote the TP.” How so? How the hell so? What did Fox report on OWS that “defeated” it? The truth? The facts? Footage of the violence, destruction, filth, disrespect, crime and racism while omitting the coverage of them planting flowers in parks and feeding orphans? Would you suggest that it would have been more “just” to ignore such facts, as most of the MSM did, since Obama came out and openly lent his approval and support?
Did Fox ignore reports of violence, racism and destruction perpetrated by the Tea Parties? If so, perhaps you can provide the facts of the actual events.
See, this is what I meant by “NEWS”. It is supposed to be reported as it occurs, not sanitized, hidden or amplified. The fact is, ALL about the OWS riots was BAD while there was little or no negative FACTS about the Tea Parties to report (so, Fox didn’t). They protested peacefully, made their point, cleaned up after themselves and left. Period. Done. OWS, not so much. Apparently, simply because negative stories are reported about the effects of your ideology, you feel that is unfair, just as you feel not inventing negative stories about the things you are told to dislike is not fair, either.
By your response, you share the same delusions as the rest of the left; any attack on a conservative minority is just fair game. However, any criticism of Obama is racism simply because it is defined as such by the left. No, that’s not how it works. Obama lied to get his hands on power and has failed to live up to a single promise. That has nothing to do with race unless you want to suggest that this is characteristic of black people. It only has to do with job performance and honesty, both of which of Obama’s are dismal failures (and, again, not because of his race).
Liberal criticism of Thomas, West and Scott is not necessarily racist. My point was to point out YOUR hypocrisy by using the same tactic upon yourself (a trap you conveniently fell into and explained why the tactic is so stupid). However, calling them “Uncle Tom” IS racist… racist by every definition. And the left practices this constantly.
Thank you for oblidgingly springing both the snares I set for you. Due to the fact that so many leftists have not honed the art of thinking for themselves, this is almost TOO easy.